Continuing the discussion from Move to sheets and retain annotations:
It seems that most of us just “hack” a way around this KiCad limitation without giving much thought to how much it would change the experience for all users for much the better.
I’ve never seen any good reasons in the wishlist/bug reports that this would be overwhelming to undertake.
Any chance this is already figured for V6?
In terms of hirachical design this kind of toolset is the way to go.
X3D-UML and as a practical implementation GEF3D
One of the main problems these days is that most, or too many, are still way too much stuck in a 2D mindset.
Spacial design, not just in electronics, is the way to come about!
Just a matter of priorities. The workflow you mention has a good enough workaround available. (See Hierarchical or flat schematic design, what is best for me? (How to deal with multi page schematics?) section multi page flat design.)
The question asked in the post you follow up is not automatically resolved by multi page options. The described problem is the fault of a missing feature in copy/paste. (Copy paste could offer options if it should reset references or not. Similar to how word processors ask if they should copy text only, text plus formatting, …)
The main usecase that can not be served right now is having multiple pages on any hierarchical level with local labels being confined to all these pages that are in the same level. I suspect this will the thing that will be implemented not some hack that means one has to choose between hierarchical or flat design.
See for example: https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1688717
Sometimes I forget which program subset has which features. Which is funny in an odd sort of way.
If the RefDes was lost in PcbNew with the Duplicate function, then copying blocks of layout would be easier.
On the other hand loosing the Ref’d in PcbNew with the Duplicate function would make panelizing much harder.
This is not currently on the work plan for v6. That doesn’t mean that someone won’t take it on and submit a valid method for achieving it. But it needs to wait for the new schematic file format and then have a valid proposal that fits in long-term maintaining plans.
If this were the only feature for v6, it would not be overwhelming. But it is simply a matter of priorities right now. As @Rene_Poschl says, there is a decent work-around for flat-designs, so it doesn’t generally jump in front of issues that have no work arounds.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.